Gavin Grades The Movies |
|
|
| Posts from August 2009 |
Julie & Julia
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 I'm a little behind in seeing this, but I was given the heads-up that it makes you very hungry. Â I was pressed for time so I had to eat dinner that night at Applebee's before seeing the film. Â Within the first couple shots of the movie you automatically feel like whatever you just ate is inadequate and lacked in flavor by a landslide to what's being made on the screen...in my case it was made even worse by my dinner choice. Â "Julie & Julia" is based on two books, two true stories and mushed together because it probably looked great on paper to do that. Â In my opinion, it wasn't. Â I actually would've been very interested in a movie that was just about Julia Child (Meryl Streep). Â I consider myself a "foodie" but besides that she led a very interesting life, was a pioneer and an inspiration for women who want to bust through glass ceiling. Â The story of Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is not interesting at all. Â She's a woman who was lost in her own life so she started a blog where she wrote about trying to cook all 500+ receipts from Julia Child's famous "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" book in a year. Â According to her, Julia Child and this project saved her life, her marriage and her sanity. Â Unfortunately you don't see any of that in the film. Â It's never fully explained how doing this made her see her life and marriage in a totally new light. Â Although I love Adams as an actress, she shows us one side of the character and never gives it an arch at all. Â To me it seemed that the Producers wanted to do a movie on Julia Child and thought no one would see it unless it had something else to it. Â That might be true for most, but adding the Julie Powell story just made it longer. Â Not to say that it's boring or painful to watch. Â It's not! Â It's cute and light and silly. Â But the movie becomes interesting again when it's back to 1950s France with Julia and her husband Paul. Â Now Paul is played by the awesome, Stanley Tucci. Â It's interesting to see the trailers beforehand full of the forthcoming romantic-comedies that star your usual Sandra Bullocks, Sarah Jessica Parkers, and Matthew McConaugheys because none of those actors share chemistry the way that Streep and Tucci do in this. Â There are scenes in the movie between them that director Nora Ephron capture in one continuous shot because they glide through dialogue in a way that's so natural that you honestly believe these people are in love...of course it helps when you were a couple that was as devoted as The Childs were to each other. Â This movie has many good parts and is enjoyable to see. Â Streep has earned another Oscar nomination as far as I'm concerned and so far is the leading contender. Â But it feels like a meal prepared by Julie Powell and not Julia Child...not nearly as good as it should or could be, but still pretty damn tasty.
Julie & Julia (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
|
|
| |
Inglorious Basterds
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 All the trailers and ads for this movie proudly say "The new action film from Quentin Tarantino staring Brad Pitt," but I gotta tell ya that that's false advertising. Sorry about that. I was a little disappointed too. I guess this requires a little explanation. The "Brad Pitt" part is easy. "Basterds" has a running time of 2.5 hours and I would guess that Pitt is in it for about an hour of that but he makes every second of those scenes brutal and hilarious. But the absence of Pitt is not a bad thing since the other actors pull their own weight; it's just not the Pitt-driven vehicle you probably thought it would be. With the exception of Eli Roth (Director of the "Hostel" movies), BJ Novak ("The Office") and Mike Myers (yeah, that Mike Myers) you probably won't recognize anyone in the movie. Tarantino selected a mostly European cast that is a virtual United Nations of languages. That's something that you need to be prepared for since 75% of the movie is in subtitles as the actors speak German, French and even Italian. Two of the new foreign faces that are a joy to watch are Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent. Waltz is the perfect villain as he encompasses sinister humor and brutal menace in every scene he's in. Laurent is a stunningly gorgeous French actress that has mastered the art of subtlety in her anguish and enragement so well, it's devastating to watch. Now, what I meant by the lack of "Tarantino" is that the movie feels more like a European director trying to emulate his style. Maybe that was his point, but it backfires at times. It's to be expected (and usually welcomed) that QT's movies are self-indulgent, but when you have those long, plotting, dialogue-heavy scenes in another language it looses some of that Tarantino Touch that we all love and will sit through. The movie really does test your patience. The finale does NOT disappoint in the slightest, which is your reward for sitting through the whole movie. If you get bored or confused to the point of wanting to leave the theater, I would totally understand. All of his movies are made for true fans of film, but this may be his most ambitious attempt at seeing how far can he push his audience before giving them the violent finish they wait for.
Inglorious Basterds (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A-
|
|
| |
District 9
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 Hey creators of "Transformers 2," I hope you pay attention to this movie and learn a thing or two from it. It was an independent film, produced by Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings trilogy) for only $20 million and it's absolutely superb!!! It's rare that I will beg people to go see a movie because I get the impression that that's annoying. The last movie that I begged people to go see was "The Dark Knight." "District 9" is just as good, if not better, and I'm BEGGING you to go see it. If South African director Neill Blomkamp came to me years ago and said that he wanted to make a science fiction movie that was about aliens coming to Earth that was loaded with thrilling action, achingly-real emotion, comedy in the right places AND have it be a powerful and important statement about human rights and apartheid, I would've said it will never even be made, let alone be any good. It just sounds too ambitious. He pulled it off though...big time! However, this movie is not for the squeamish. The violence is stylized but it's plentiful and graphic, yet creative. See, the movie begins and ends as a mock-documentary as to set up the backstory. Then it seamlessly changes into a regular movie without ever feeling like a separate film. But added touches such as hand-held camera shots and blood splattered on the camera lens helps remind you that this could still be documentary footage and adds to the realism. That's crucial to get the point across that even though this is about aliens, humans are treated like this in refugee camps every day. The special effects are amazingly lifelike considering the film's modest budget. My guess is that Blomkamp learned some tricks from the FX King, Jackson. Also adding to the realism is that there are no Hollywood sets involved and the entire film was shot where the story takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa with all South African actors. The star of those actors is a man named Sharlto Copley. Learn that name because he's gonna be a star. The man seems to know how to make you laugh, cry, cheer and wince in under two hours. I really don't have one bad thing to say about this film. I don't think we'll be seeing it up for any Oscars because the Academy can't seem to bring itself to nominating a movie that has a CGI alien as a co-star. But if enough people see it and start talking about it, it just might get the credit it deserves. So please go see it...I'm begging you.
District 9 (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A+
|
|
| |
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 I've been a fan of Jeremy Piven's for a long time. I remember being 14 and going to see "PCU" in the theaters and thinking that was one of the funniest college movies I ever saw. Then I grew up and realized it's not as funny as I remembered it, but his performance in "Very Bad Things" and the HBO series "Entourage" have kept me a loyal fan. I may need to seriously re-think that allegiance after seeing this. Just to give you an idea of how bad it was, there was a woman snoring behind me. Well, I think she was snoring. She was either snoring or breathing because she did weigh like 500 lbs. But if she fell asleep, I wouldn't blame her. This movie is damn near awful. The only reason it got the grade that it did was because of two scenes that involve a celebrity cameo (won't say who it is, but it's not hard to guess). If that actor wasn't so funny, I don't think I would have laughed out loud the entire time. It's directed by a guy named Neal Brennan, who used to write for that show "Singled Out" and tried his hand at directing for the first time with this. You can tell it's his first time. The movie looks as cheap and tawdry as the used car salesmen the movie centers around. The poster says that it's from "the guys behind 'Talladega Nights' and 'Step Brothers.'" By that they mean the Producers (Will Ferrell & Adam McKay - FunnyorDie.com) are among them. I want to believe that if this movie was on FunnyorDie.com...it would be die. Okay. I know, I'm beating up on this movie pretty badly. It's not entirely horrible. The cast is actually rather impressive. Ving Rhames, Ed Helms, David Koechner, Rob Riggle and Kathryn Hahn ("Anchorman" and lots more movies to come) round out the cast. Even "Growing Pains" own Alan Thicke, who's looking more and more like a Who from Whoville, has a small role in this. You'd think that with these comedy up-and-comers, you'd knock it out of the park. Well, they tried. But after a grueling 90 minutes of movie, the battle was lost. I had a few moments where I chuckled. I had two short scenes where I laughed my ass off. The rest of the time I was looking at my watch and listening to the snoring metronome behind me. Ironic that a movie about warrior car salesmen that can sell anything fell so far short of closing the sale of making a good comedy.
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: D
|
|
| |
(500) Days of Summer
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 It's rare that a movie comes along that has it all. Usually the acting and the directing is great but the screenplay was a little off. Other times the script is almost perfect and the actors perform to their fullest but the director is uncreative and boring. And occasionally the director does a masterpiece with a flawless script but Julia Roberts is in it. That's not the case with this film; everything lined up perfectly. Director, Marc Webb, has knocked it out of the park with visuals that weren't shoehorned in for no reason but didn't chicken out with generic over-the-shoulder shots either. Not too bad considering this is his first movie and the last thing he did was a Jesse McCartney music video. The acting from stars Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was perfection as they spun a web of chemistry that seemed like genuine love. Not too bad considering she did "The Happening" and he's the kid from "3rd Rock from the Sun." Too top it all off the script was written by two guys who made a romance movie that was funny, heartbreaking, and surreal yet painfully real. Not too bad considering that they also wrote "Pink Panther 2." It's as if fate wanted all these non-impressive people to come together to create this perfect romantic comedy...ironic given the plot of the movie. What makes me love this film so much was that it didn't set up the unreachable expectations that every other romance movie does. There aren't the sweeping romantic scenes on a hilltop or under a waterfall. There's no passionate kissing in the rain. There isn't even the impossibly romantic chance meetings or elaborate dates. It's two people and what happens to them in this relationship...in all its painfully plain highs and lows. It's so refreshing to see a romantic film that speaks to us instead of at us. Think about it. Most romance movies make you think "wouldn't that be SO romantic" or "I wish someone would do that to me" or "they're so lucky." Now imagine watching a romantic movie that makes you think "that's happened to me" and "I know EXACTLY how that feels." And while you're thinking that you bounce back and forth from having your gut shake with laughter and your eyes well with tears. I know it's a little early in the season and it's rare that movies like this pull it out, but I would say that this should be a serious contender for the Oscar for "Best Picture." If "Annie Hall" could do it, then I see no reason this couldn't. At the very least it deserves an award for being the first film to perfectly capture what it feels like to have sex with the biggest crush of your life for the first time. I know that's not an Oscar category but I'm sure it's an MTV Movie Award one, right?
(500) Days of Summer (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A+
|
|
| |
Funny People
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 I think that it's pretty misleading to have a movie called "Funny People" and that stars Adam Sandler. Not a fan of his, never was and probably never will be. However, he was good in this. He wasn't funny, but he was good. The movie is carried on the backs of Seth Rogen and Writer/Director Judd Apatow's great script. This is kind of the last in a trilogy of Apatow's with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up" kicking it off. Even though they don't have the same characters (which could be confusing since they all star the same people except the lead) they're a linear stream of conscientiousness for the road of life. Although "Virgin" was about a 40-year-old, it dealt with a subject that represented early adulthood. "Knocked Up" was about that pivotal moment in some lives that changes you for the rest of it. And "Funny People" is about the mortality that awaits all of us and how we deal with it. This one is probably the most serious of the three and ironically the least funny. That's not to say that there aren't some great scenes and hilarious lines. The one-hit-wonder, Jonah Hill, is there to provide most of that in the movie. The problem with the film is the problem that Apatow has with all his films, they're too damn long. There is always a part in the last act of his movies that just feels like it could be either cut completely or trimmed by about 20 minutes. In Apatow's defense, it's really hard to make a comedy that's over 2 and a half hours long still entertaining but I would say that in most cases, no comedy should ever try. The good news with this is that it's not a comedy...not really. I thought that it did a good job of mixing the funny and the sad, but never once feeling like it was forced. I think that probably comes from having a cast that has done this kind of movie so many times over. It also may come from Apatow himself. We've known for a while that he is a gifted writer that makes funny movies for adults that both men and women can enjoy together, but he's now also starting to really show his chops in the director's chair. This is probably his most visually impressive movies to date, which might have something to do with the story being so visceral. Of course Apatow does get a little annoying at times by allowing so many cameos in his movies, which now comes across as him just showing off how many famous people he can put in his films. Just like the plot of the story, there's good news and bad news with "Funny People." Good News: It's an amusing comedy that's not afraid to show you a dark and dramatic look at decisions that come from people who are facing death. Bad News: It could've done that in a funnier, more dramatic and shorter way.
Funny People (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B
|
|
| |
|
